Global Courant
It’s hard to take Governor Gavin Newsom’s proposals for streamlining construction seriously.
Last month, the governor called a rousing press conference at the site of a future solar park in the Central Valley to unveil the state’s plans. “most ambitious licensing and project review reforms in half a century.” He said his reforms would shorten project timelines by more than three years, save hundreds of millions of dollars and reduce paperwork by many thousands of pages. It sounded promising.
California absolutely needs to make it faster and cheaper to build transportation, clean energy and water infrastructure. Important projects can get bogged down in red tape and lengthy litigation, wasting time and money. The Biden administration will be doling out billions of dollars for construction and climate resilience projects over the next several years, so the state should look for ways to remove unnecessary hurdles that delay approval and build to get the dollars to work faster.
But Newsom missed the point by stepping forward 11 infrastructure bills that is a hodgepodge of proposals. Most are highly technical, and many are vague, duplicative, or give the administration new powers to speed up projects of its choosing. He urges lawmakers to pass these bills as part of the budget — that is, by June 15 or soon after — leaving little time for study or meaningful public input.
That the governor would try to get a half-baked plan into law in less than a month makes the whole package look more like political theater than serious policymaking.
During four days of hearings on the bills last week, frustrated lawmakers repeatedly asked the same questions: Why is the governor trying to make complex legal and policy changes in a matter of weeks? Why should there be so little time for public input or analysis? What is the urgency?
The answers from the Newsom administration were inconclusive. California, officials said, will be “deprioritized” for federal funding if the state can’t get projects done faster. Okay, what funding is at risk? Which specific projects need to go faster? The administration does not want to say. California, they said, is way behind on its climate goals and needs to act now. OK, what efforts will be jeopardized if lawmakers go through the normal, deliberative process of passing the bills in August or January, instead of this month? Again, the administration did not explain.
When announcing his streamlining proposals, Newsom characterized them as essential to restoring confidence that government can improve people’s lives and respond to the threat posed by climate change. He is right that the public wants to see more results for their tax dollars.
Still, Newsom and other leaders can’t ignore the fact that some of those cumbersome processes were designed to also restore confidence after the government allowed communities and ecosystems to be trampled in the name of progress. While California is phasing out some of that red tape, state leaders must do so in a transparent, consultative process.
Last week’s hearings showed that trust is still at the heart of these debates. Proponents worry that the governor’s proposals will fail state communities that oppose the construction of a highly controversial $16 billion tunnel under the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to transport water to Southern California. Others fear they will make it easier to flatten homes and businesses for highway expansions that do nothing to combat climate change.
Some of the changes proposed by the governor build on existing efforts to streamline the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, which requires developers to disclose the environmental impacts of their projects and reduce the damage they may cause. Lawmakers have previously granted select projects, including sports stadiums and corporate headquarters, an expedited trajectory that resolves CEQA lawsuits in nine months instead of a year or more. Newsom wants to be able to allocate that expedited justice schedule to water, transportation, clean energy, semiconductors and microelectronics projects of your choice.
Another proposal would allow government agencies to exclude internal emails and text messages from official records. The Newsom administration argues that this will save time and manpower as agencies don’t have to collect and review emails in compiling all documentation leading to a CEQA decision. But it is unclear whether the proposal will save time – internal communications are public records and any savvy CEQA attorney will simply request a public records to get them.
There are other proposals expedite major construction by letting agencies contract with companies to design and build projects, rather than outsourcing every step of the development process. Lawmakers have already allowed that process for select projects. Newsom wants state agencies to use draft construction contracts for eight water and transportation projects, which sounds like a reasonable request. But is it so urgent that it has to bypass the usual analysis and discussion?
There is potential for worthy reform within the governor’s proposals, if Newsom is willing to listen and negotiate. It’s easy to hold a press conference. It is more difficult but much more valuable to have good policies that drive smart, lasting change.